Personal tools
You are here: Home → communicationRecord → rfc2188Publication → No Subject
Navigation
Log in


Forgot your password?
 

No Subject

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

No Subject


a comment from one of the IESG members about your draft

Scott

--

>From hta@dale.uninett.no Mon Aug 18 08:05:50 1997
X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.9 8/22/96
From: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no
To: Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>
cc: iesg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: draft-rfced-info-banan-esro-00.txt
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 17 Aug 1997 20:48:03 EDT." <199708180048.UAA08679@newdev.harvard.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 12:47:04 +0200
Sender: hta@dale.uninett.no

The broken part of the protocol is this line:

>4.6.3  Use of lower layers
>
>ESRO protocol uses UDP port number 259.

The protocol is an obvious alternate to "heavier" RPC protocols,
but has only 8 bits of SAP to differentiate between different users.
The "obviously right" thing to my mind is to say that the assignment
of an UDP port is part of the application protocol.

The document is also self-conflicting; see this paragraph:

> 2.4.2  Performer-address

> This parameter is the address of the ESROS Performer User which 
> consists of ESRO Service Access Point (SAP) Selector, Transport 
> Service Access Point (TSAP) Selector (e.g., port number), and Network 
> Service Access Point (NSAP) address (e.g., IP address).  This 
> parameter has to be supplied by the invoker of the service.

> ESROS Invoker User provides the Performer-address parameter for the 
> ESROS-INVOKE.request primitive. 

which seems to call the port part of the address.

I have no objection to publication, but if you talk to them again,
it might not hurt to clarify this part.

                          Harald
Main Index | Thread Index
Document Actions